If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Louisville-Jefferson County Metro Government v. Stoke

In Louisville-Jefferson County Metro Government v. Stoke, 2008 WL 2468757 (Ky.
App. 2008), Stoke was an employee of a local gun store. He was spotted with
an unconcealed handgun while at a nearby restaurant and LMPD was notified.
(There was no allegation that he did anything with the gun, or that the location
prohibited weapons, just that he had it holstered on his person.) They located
him as he returned to the gun store and pulled in behind him. Officers
approached him with weapons drawn and gave him contradictory commands.
One of the officers seized his weapon. Despite being told by the owner that the
subject was disabled by a bone disease, and officer forced him to the ground
and handcuffed him, causing him intense pain. After confirming that there was
no reason to hold him, he was yanked up by the handcuffs, again causing injury.
The handcuffs were removed and his gun returned to him.
Stoke filed a lawsuit, asserting false arrest and battery. The Kentucky Supreme
Court ultimately determined that although Metro Louisville itself is immune from
suit (as it gained the status of a political subdivision / county at merger), that the
officers themselves bore some responsibility.
Specifically, the Court stated:
Though we know of no law prohibiting a private citizen from carrying an
unconcealed firearm, we acknowledge that the frequency of such behavior
in major metropolitan areas is sufficiently rare that we cannot say that the
officer's decision to make an investigatory stop was not “a good faith
judgment call[ ] made in a legally uncertain environment.
The Court agreed that officers may “perform investigatory detentions
when they have articulable suspicion that the detainee is engaged in
criminal activity.”1 As such, the Court agreed the officers were entitled
to official immunity on the detention, as they had, “at worse, a
‘reasonable misapprehension” of the constitutional law governing the
circumstances.” However, the Court did not extend the immunity the
treatment Stokes alleged, which included that the officers “(1) issued
conflicting commands; (2) forced him at gunpoint to the ground and
handcuffed him in a rough manner despite warnings about his frailness;
and (3) otherwise treated him roughly without any legitimate cause.” The
Court noted that the allegations indicated that the “officer's treatment of
him went well beyond that which was necessary to conduct a reasonable
investigatory stop” as he was apparently completely cooperative. The
case was remanded back and no further legal action was taken, which
suggests the case was ultimately settled by Louisville Metro.

1. This case says (we acknowledge that the frequency of such behavior
in major metropolitan areas is sufficiently rare that we cannot say that the
officer's decision to make an investigatory stop was not “a good faith
judgment call[ ] made in a legally uncertain environment.) ((remember this is a 2008 case not that old))
Does this mean they have RAS in the big cities to stop you for OC?
2. Also (officer's treatment of him went well beyond that which was necessary to conduct a reasonable
investigatory stop” as he was apparently completely cooperative)
So if we don't cooperate IE no ID shown, keep month shut ect. then they are entitled
to official immunity when they “(1) issued conflicting commands; (2) force you at gunpoint to the ground and
handcuffed you in a rough manner; and (3) otherwise treat you roughly without any legitimate cause."
3. Any update (The case was remanded back and no further legal action was taken, which
suggests the case was ultimately settled by Louisville Metro.)

If so, it means nothing but that the case will continue with the defendant's left .. in my state there is an agency that has the authority to waive immunity issues and allow a case to proceed against the state or other immunity protected groups that they have jurisdiction over...don't know if this state does..

If so, it means nothing but that the case will continue with the defendant's left .. in my state there is an agency that has the authority to waive immunity issues and allow a case to proceed against the state or other immunity protected groups that they have jurisdiction over...don't know if this state does..